The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.“In the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city of San Perdito, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Two businesses have closed f

In this argument, the author concludes that the residents for San Perdito would be best served if they reelected Varro and let him be a new mayor of the city. This conclusion is based on the premises that under Varro’s period, the population increased and the unemployment rate decreased while under Montoya, the unemployment rate increased and the population decreased. The conclusion of this argument relies on the assumption for which there is no evidence. Hence the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that the city under Varro is better than one under Montoya. This assumption is never supported by other data and fails to consider the other factors which make the life of residents of this city is better. For example, what if under Varro’s management, the crime rate increased and people’s safety is in danger? Their life would be unhappy even though the unemployment rate decreased. Clearly, the argument could have been much persuaded if it is given more data about other factors which affect people’s life.

Second, the argument claim that when Montoya has served as mayor of the city, the unemployment rates have increased, two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened and therefore, Montoya’s management is not good as Varro’s management. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate other elements contributing to Varro’s success, not just only skills. For instance, under Varro’s period, there are no natural disasters happened, but under Montoya’s mayor time, there are so many storms and catastrophic weather leading to destroying a lot of city’s facility and houses. Unless the author can include the starting point of both mayors, the argument is still not convincing.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mention reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentions all the relevant facts that effects to people’s lives to make a persuaded comparison between two mayors and the author need to compare both mayors in the same condition and starting point. Without this information, the argument remains unclear and open to debate.